Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club
227 U.S. 633 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A ticket to a place of public amusement constitutes a revocable license, not a property right (in rem). The ticket holder's exclusive remedy for wrongful ejection or refusal of entry is an action for breach of contract, not an action in trespass or a right to enforce entry.
Facts:
- Marrone purchased a ticket of admission to the Benningh Race Track, operated by the Washington Jockey Club.
- On a specific day, the Washington Jockey Club's agents forcibly prevented Marrone from entering the race track, despite his valid ticket.
- The following day, Marrone successfully entered the track after dropping his ticket into the admission box.
- Shortly after his entry, agents of the Washington Jockey Club forcibly ejected him from the premises.
- Marrone alleged he was excluded because the Washington Jockey Club accused him of having previously 'doped' a horse entered in a race.
- The Washington Jockey Club used no more force than was necessary to prevent his entry and to later eject him.
Procedural Posture:
- Marrone (plaintiff) filed an action for trespass against the Washington Jockey Club (defendant) in the trial court for the District of Columbia.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the Washington Jockey Club.
- Marrone (as appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Washington Jockey Club (appellee).
- Marrone then brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a ticket to a place of public amusement create an irrevocable property right allowing the holder to enter and remain on the premises against the owner's will, or is it merely a revocable license whose breach only gives rise to a contract claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
No, a ticket to a place of public amusement is a revocable license and does not create an irrevocable property right to be on the premises. The court affirms the commonly accepted rule that such tickets do not create a right in rem. While the purchase of a ticket forms a contract, a contract itself does not convey an interest in the property it concerns unless it also operates as a conveyance, like a deed. A ticket, by common understanding, is not a conveyance and does not purport to grant a property interest. Therefore, it is merely a license subject to revocation by the property owner. If the license is revoked, the ticket holder does not have the right to enforce specific performance by self-help; their only legal recourse is to sue for damages for the breach of contract.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the traditional common law distinction between property rights (in rem) and contractual rights (in personam). It establishes that proprietors of private amusement venues retain broad authority to exclude patrons, as a ticket only creates a contract, not an easement or other interest in the land. This precedent reinforces the power of property owners to control access to their premises, limiting the remedy for ejected patrons to contract damages rather than a right to remain. While later civil rights legislation would create statutory exceptions to this rule (prohibiting exclusion based on protected classes), the core common law principle established in Marrone remains influential in property and contract law.
Unlock the full brief for Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club